Interesting topic came up....

[vumbi]

I will 'bend' my vow not to enter this cesspool in order to respond to a couple of comments on education.

 

I'm sure these entitled students want Yale and Harvard free education.  Instead would they be willing to go 2 years in a state technical college, then 2 at a state university for 2 years?  I doubt it. 

 

Actually, I rub shoulders with both of these kinds institutions (see avatar) and there is quite a growing interest in doing what Stosh, you say you doubt. One local 4-year state college is constructing new buildings just to house the 'bridge' students coming in from the tech schools. It seems to be a good working partnership and a very rapidly growing one.

As for that 'of color' comment by Krampus, the tech schools are quite open to all persons and in this area they are represented by minorities at rates roughly the same as the proportion in the population. OTOH, the 4-year public college near me has stringent entry requirements, but they do want more 'diversity'. Nevertheless everyone has to meet those entry requirements - unless you have special athletic skills it seems. But that's another story.

 

Now off to the shower....

Edited May 2, 2016 by vumbi

[TAHAWK]

The problem with "free" is that "free" stimulates demand - the "free" bowl of candy" effect.  There ought to be a way to deal with that problem other than than total denial or effective total denial.  However, the "free medical care" societies do not seem to have found it beyond the state deciding what medical care you "need."

[Stosh]

"There ain't no free lunch!"  There's a cost to everything.  While others may have to pay for one's "freebies", there is also a side of the issue that @@TAHAWK points out that the cost of "free" health care is in receiving only what others deem necessary and the loss of one's freedom to chose is the price one pays.

[Krampus]

If one wishes to go out of state, they pay for it.  If one wishes to go to private schools, they pay for it.  If they wish the tax payers to pick up the tab, they take the in-state 2 -> 4 year state schools for tuition free education.  They might think they are entitled to a free tuition education, but the tax payer pays for nice state schools right in their own state that should fit the bill very nicely.

 

@@Stosh, it is tough to get in to state schools from i-state these days. With all the quotas out there, if you don't fit in to one of the quota groups -- and at the top of that group -- you don't get in. Out of state or private schools are the only option in most cases. Some state schools are now offering in-state tuition to lure those folks from neighboring states that would otherwise qualify for in-state in their own state. You'd think that in-state folks would get preference over out-of-state folks but that's a thing of the past. 

 

I confess I don't quite understand statements like charity "at the point of a gun" and "stealing out of someone else's hard work" and all that.

Then let me explain. You work your butt off but still pay a ton of taxes because you are successful. You hope to benefit from your hard work when you retire by recouping some of what you have paid in the system. You can't because I have sat on my butt my whole life and am using all those government programs you've paid for so I can live off of your hard work.

 

Remember, Jesus was the ultimate Christian but even he said it was better to teach a man to fish (hard work fulfillment) than simply giving him one (charity).

 

Economically, it makes a lot of sense to pay 100% for health insurance for kids and young folks, eh?  That's an investment in future production and contribution to da country.   Makes little sense for da country to pay for Medicare for retirees.   They're just takin' from da system.   They could have saved up for health care costs in their retirement, eh?  And if they didn't, let 'em die in da streets and reduce da surplus population!   Most of us gave up flirtin' with Ayn Rand when we were teenagers, though, and embraced Scoutin' values.

Funny. Actually, most of us stopped flirting with socialist and 60s style sociology when they realized that the government cannot provide for you as well as YOU can provide for you. Remember the 80s? Funny how all those hippies threw their views about wealth accumulation out the window when it meant that THEY could have large sums of money. Nothing like selling out what you thought you believed in, huh?

 

Payin' taxes is just regular, ordinary good citizenship, eh?    I don't want to teach boys to complain about taxes, or jury duty, or military service, or any of da things that are just what we citizens have decided to do together.

 

Paying our FAIR taxes is good citizenship. Just as working for a living rather than living off the taxpayer is good citizenship. I have no issue with very limited social welfare programs. I have a huge problem with people here illegally using them or people living off them long term as if they are an entitlement program for those who don't give a darn. Those truly in need due to illness or injury, that's another story. I have mates that came back from Iraq and Afghanistan that are STILL waiting for help from those government programs you think are working. Private charities have done more in one month for them than the government has done in 5 years. It is hard to take anyone who advocates government as a caretaker of social welfare seriously with the horrid track record they have in this area.

 

As for that 'of color' comment by Krampus, the tech schools are quite open to all persons and in this area they are represented by minorities at rates roughly the same as the proportion in the population. OTOH, the 4-year public college near me has stringent entry requirements, but they do want more 'diversity'. Nevertheless everyone has to meet those entry requirements - unless you have special athletic skills it seems. But that's another story.

But there are still quotas. When a kid with 1310 on his SATs and an A average cannot get in to a prestigious tech school because "his slot" is full, tells me that the system is not picking the best and brightest, but is still looking at skin color to determine who get in. Worse, when kids get financial aid when both parents are making 6 figures, there's something wrong with the system.

[TAHAWK]

"The ends justify the means" is a slippery slope.  

[Beavah]

It's the capitalist model.

 

Nah, it isn't. 

 

In a pure capitalist model, only da families with capital get to send their kids to get an education.

 

People only funding state schools is da old Soviet communist model.   Yeh get only one choice, eh?  Da choice da government provides.

 

Kids are different, eh?  They aren't one-size-fits-all.   As a taxpayer, I want kids to have as much opportunity as possible, and I want 'em to have choice.   I reckon it's a better use of my tax dollars if I send Joe the Budding Engineer off to Purdue than to Backwater State.  More likely to grow the economy and make da nation stronger.    Meanwhile, it's probably a waste to send Lazy Rich Kid off to Harvard when his spot at Harvard could go to Go Getter City Kid.   College access should be by merit not by family capital... if we want what's best for da country in the long run.

 

Remember, Jesus was the ultimate Christian but even he said it was better to teach a man to fish (hard work fulfillment) than simply giving him one (charity).

 

Nah, he didn't.  Not once.   He said feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, care for the sick, etc.   Whatsoever yeh do for the folks most in need, that you do to Him.

 

Personally, I pay taxes because that's my duty as a citizen, eh?  Not because I expect to get anythin' back from "the system".   Not sure why I'd expect much back from a Ponzi scheme like Social Security, and Medicare is just another charitable wealth transfer to us old folks who consume way more than our "fair share" of medical resources.  Well, not "us" I guess, because I'm still not on da receivin' end.  I like workin' too much. 

 

I don't expect I'll ever need da police or firefighters, but those are like insurance too, eh?  Payin' for insurance is just bein' responsible.

 

I remember when I was helpin' out down in New Orleans after Katrina, eh?   Yeh had a bunch of us from ARC who were out in towns literally triaging people as they dropped.  Meanwhile, there were about a thousand emergency workers who were tied up behind fences in FEMA camps not allowed to go out and help because of various bureaucratic restrictions like not havin' Louisiana licenses or certifications.  I even helped a few jump da fence .   So I get what you're sayin' about poorly run government programs and poor accountability.  

 

Keep in mind, those laws that hampered those workers were laws We the People passed, eh?   And da leaders at FEMA were political appointees put there by da folks we elected.  Nobody to blame but ourselves and who we elected to represent us.

 

Beavah

[Stosh]

 

@@Stosh, it is tough to get in to state schools from i-state these days. With all the quotas out there, if you don't fit in to one of the quota groups -- and at the top of that group -- you don't get in. Out of state or private schools are the only option in most cases. Some state schools are now offering in-state tuition to lure those folks from neighboring states that would otherwise qualify for in-state in their own state. You'd think that in-state folks would get preference over out-of-state folks but that's a thing of the past. 

 

 

But alas, dear @@Krampus Why would out-of-state students want to come to your state when they can get a free education in their own.  Remember, this is a socialist/communist system where the easy choice is the only free one.  Luring out-of-state students so they can get a free education?  Not likely.  I'm thinking that the whole system would change if the only free option was one's own in-state state funded system.  No Oklahoma student with any sense would pay to go to a Texas state school and pay out-of-state tuition when they can get a free education in Oklahoma.

[TAHAWK]

Because they pay far more, places are reserved for out-of-state students.  For some reason unknown to me, a disproportionate number of students taking the history survey courses I taught were from New Jersey.

 

"The oldest English-language use of the proverb has been found in Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie's (1837–1919) novel, Mrs. Dymond (1885), in a slightly different form:

'I don't suppose even Caron could tell you the difference between material and spiritual,' said Max, shrugging his shoulders. 'He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I suppose the Patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn. But these very elementary principles are apt to clash with the leisure of the cultivated classes. Will Mr. Bagginal now produce his ticket—the result of favour and the unjust sub-division of spiritual environments?" said Du Parc, with a smile.' "  

 

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."  Maimonides  (A different rabbi)  

 

"Lastly, the eighth and the most meritorious of all, is to anticipate charity by preventing poverty, namely, to assist the reduced brother, either by a considerable gift or loan of money, or by teaching him a trade, or by putting him in the way of business, so that he may earn an honest livelihood and not be forced to the dreadful alternative of holding up his hand for charity. " Maimonides

Edited May 2, 2016 by TAHAWK

[Stosh]

If one takes away the reason for entitlement by educating and helping one also takes away the reason for forced charity.

 

In a capitalistic society there is always hope to break the cycle of poverty.  No one ever got out of poverty sitting around waiting for a welfare check.

[Krampus]

But alas, dear @@Krampus Why would out-of-state students want to come to your state when they can get a free education in their own.  Remember, this is a socialist/communist system where the easy choice is the only free one.  Luring out-of-state students so they can get a free education?  Not likely.  I'm thinking that the whole system would change if the only free option was one's own in-state state funded system.  No Oklahoma student with any sense would pay to go to a Texas state school and pay out-of-state tuition when they can get a free education in Oklahoma.

 

Free? Who is getting free in-state tuition? 

 

Try being a mid to upper class ranked student with A-B grades and 1200 SATs trying to get in to your own state school. If you have color you have a shot. If you don't, you better be looking at a private school that hasn't reached their quota yet.

 

I'd rather acceptance we totally blind and accept kids based on achievement, not color, or sex, or orientation, or size of mommy and daddy's bank account.

[Stosh]

Free? Who is getting free in-state tuition? 

 

Try being a mid to upper class ranked student with A-B grades and 1200 SATs trying to get in to your own state school. If you have color you have a shot. If you don't, you better be looking at a private school that hasn't reached their quota yet.

 

I'd rather acceptance we totally blind and accept kids based on achievement, not color, or sex, or orientation, or size of mommy and daddy's bank account.

 

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the impact of having tuition free education proposed by the entitlement youth protesting around the country.  I was going with a "what-if" scenario of 2 year state tech college free tuition, followed by a 2 more free years in a state university.  Then if someone wanted more than that for their child, the tax payer would be off the hook and the parents/students can pay for their own specialty education.  If an Oklahoma student didn't like the offerings of the free Oklahoma state system, they could then go to Texas and pay for whatever out-of-state tuition they wanted to, just don't expect to have the Oklahoma taxpayers pick up the tab. 

 

This of course, is based on the principle that the tuition is the free part, the students still have to pay for room/board, user fees, books, supplies, t-shirts, and beer on their own. 

 

Of course one must also realize in socialist society, the government dictates whether the education is free depending on the grades the student puts up.  If a student doesn't perform well at a certain level, that's when the government education stops.  If one wishes to go beyond that, they can pay for it on their own.

 

To me, any serious student interested in bettering him/herself would have a chance to do so and as a taxpayer, I wouldn't really have a problem with that.

[Beavah]

A smart state should do one of two things, eh?   Provide an excellent set of colleges and universities that attract kids from other states, and (if necessary) provide free or reduced tuition to strong students from other states.

 

That way yeh steal their best kids, eh?    Kids often stay in da states and communities where they went to school.  That's why "university corridors" and such are economic engines, in part, and why property values in university towns rebounded lots faster than da rest of da country.

 

Beavah

[Krampus]

A smart state should do one of two things, eh?   Provide an excellent set of colleges and universities that attract kids from other states, and (if necessary) provide free or reduced tuition to strong students from other states.

 

 

Oklahoma is doing that now for Texas students. Big draw.

 

One Scout is bucking the family trend and going to OU (family is 4 generations Texas grads). Turmoil to say the least, but he's getting in-state tuition and he got in...was wait listed at Texas.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Krampus

[TAHAWK]

"you deserve more, and they should pay for it."

[NJCubScouter]

For some reason unknown to me, a disproportionate number of students taking the history survey courses I taught were from New Jersey.

I guess they couldn't get into Rutgers.